I respectfully request that the community overturn the good faith close by ScottishFinnishRadish to No Consensus on the grounds that the discussion was irretrievably prejudiced by selective notifications of the discussion. In particular the notification of the LGBT noticeboard by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and the WP:DISCRIMINATION by MikutoH. I note that YNFS has advanced an argument that her notifications were within the bounds of WP:APPNOTE. While arguably within a strict reading of guidelines, it still had the effect of prejudicing the discussion. The latter notification is even more problematic, and do not believe it is defensible under PG. I do not intend to belabor this as it has been discussed exhaustively both on my talk page and at SFR's talk page (currently at the bottom). In summary, my position is that you cannot have a fair discussion and an accurate reading of community consensus when there have been notifications made to editors and forums that as a matter of commonsense are going to disproportionately generate support for one side of a discussion/debate. I will conclude by noting that I am not asking for the page to be deleted. Even heavily discounting the Keep !votes it is obvious that no consensus for that exists. Nor do I currently plan to renominate the essay as I do not believe it would be productive. And in any event the essay has evolved significantly since my original nomination. I still disagree with it and most of the related "No..." essays, but I am not confident that it merits deletion in its current iteration. I have had a number of people on both sides of this express differing opinions on the concerns raised above, and obviously, I have a strong opinion or I would not be here. But I will defer to the community's judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review request withdrawn. Consensus is clear and there is no point in prolonging this. There being no comments supporting overturning the result of the MfD, I propose speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overturn, support keep: (completely uninvolved until now but following this from afar) Ad Orientem is relitigating the close of a discussion that he himself tried to shut down when it didn't go his way. That essay wasn't bothering anybody but Ad Orientem. The suggestion that it is somehow improper to notify a project devoted in part to queer topics of the proposed deletion of an essay devoted to queer topics is... something I am not certain I can describe in a civil manner, but may amount to administrative misconduct in my personal and uninvolved opinion. Since this is a rather strong opinion, I'll note that I am not even particularly close to any editor involved, nor am I a member of the LGBTQ Project. A quick shoutout in passing: NatGertler is right that "No queerphobia" would be a somewhat better title, I think. But that is a quibble and nothing to do with deletion. Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'll be glad to know that the essay was indeed moved to Wikipedia:No queerphobia before the discussion was finished and remains there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Comment: if you don't mind me asking, what would be the practical benefit to the project of overturning this Keep to No consensus? We all love to be vindicated for a well thought out and skillfully presented opinion, and the one you, Ad Orientem, originally expressed there (before striking it out) certainly fits that description. But after countless hours were spent by dozens of editors on that XfD, what have we to gain by several more of us spending another week here to do--what, exactly? Open the door for other editors to renominate the page sooner, seeing as you don't intend to do so yourself? I'm all for pro forma and due process, but at some point even I have to go with the usual "Meh" this type of DRV usually garners from the regulars here. I acknowledge the validity of your argument on that MfD, agree that discussion was tainted by what appears to be canvassing, and it's quite possible that I would have closed it as No consensus. That said, I think we should invoke WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:LETITGO. Owen×☎ 23:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think allowing one sided notifications in community discussions, especially where they touch on hot button subject areas, is unwise and allowing this to stand sends the message that such is permissible. It would have the effect of blurring P&G and providing a precedent and roadmap for WP:GAMING and WP:CANVASSING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but I doubt the canvassed crowd really cares if their essay is kept as a "Keep" or as a "No consensus". The message you're trying to send will likely be lost on them. Owen×☎ 00:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. But, as the saying goes, it is what it is. Whichever way this discussion goes, I'm going to have to treat it as precedent. And that could radically alter my understanding of what is and is not permissible and how I deal with some issues when I'm wearing my admin hat. If this stands, it might not exactly negate GAMING and CANVASSING, but it will seriously weaken them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the canvassed crowd really cares if their essay is kept as a "Keep" or as a "No consensus". This discussion, and specifically the argument that notifying WP:LGBT on LGBT-related topics is inherently canvassing, is potentially of much greater significance than the outcome of the MfD. (For the record, I came to the MfD from the WP:LGBT notice, and disagreed with the essay but supported keeping it as within the bounds of WP:PG.) A WikiProject cannot function if it cannot be notified of discussions clearly within its scope. Bringing in a variety of viewpoints is beneficial if there are multiple relevant WikiProjects, but the notifications should be based on topical relevance, not anticipated responses.--Trystan (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ScottishFinnishRadish's close, which seems to me to be an accurate summary of the MfD, which I read but did not participate in. I am troubled by the continued accusation of bad faith regarding notifying the associated wikiproject(s), and am somewhat surprised to see those accusations being repeated after ScottishFinnishRadish and others have explained why the assumption of bad faith is not warranted. 28bytes (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved but obvious Keep. The notifications in question weren't "within a strict reading of WP:APPNOTE", they were within both the text and spirit of WP:APPNOTE. WP:APPNOTE specifically allows related noticeboards to be notified, which WP:LGBT and WP:DISCRIMINATION both are. All the people pinged individually are people who had participated on the talk page of the page proposed for deletion, which is specifically also within the bounds of WP:APPNOTE.
Several of them are people who you wouldn't expect to want to keep the page: Queen of Hearts in fact !voted to delete the page in strong terms, and while Hob Gadling didn't !vote either way, their only contribution to the talk page was a single minor correction. And of course there's no guarantee that any given reader of WP:LGBT or WP:DISCRIMINATION agrees with YFNS on this issue. Nobody was excluded who should have been notified.
I honestly feel that rather than this being a partisan notification, failing to notify obvious groups like "the literal talk page of the article" and "the most relevant Wikiproject" would have been a partisan lack of notification. If you can draw a line around everyone who might want to keep a page, and you specifically notify none of those people, then you've failed to give proper notification in the first place. Loki (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of pointless absolute precision, I will note that I was individually pinged and had not (yet) "participated on the talk page of the page proposed for deletion"... but I had participated in discussion of the essay at the Wikiproject, as the pinger pointed out. And yes, I'm obviously an involved editor, but I think the central argument here seems an awful lot like "if there's a discussion somewhere about whether New Jersey is in the US or in Mozambique, we better not notify Wikiproject:New Jersey, because they all know the answer". And I don't think anyone has pointed to any Wikiprojects of reasonable relevance that could've been notified in the interest of "balance" but weren't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't bring myself to endorse Ad Orientem's request, but he does have a point that's worth recognizing. Yes, WP:APPNOTE does say you should ping The ... noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects ... which may have interest in the topic under discussion. And clearly pinging WikiProject LGBT studies met that criterion. Still, it's hard to imagine that most members of that project are not biased. It's exactly the same as if I nominated New York State Route 101 and somebody pinged WP:WikiProject Highways; I would expect that most members of that project would come out as opposing deletion. Likewise, I would expect that most members of WP:WikiProject Football would be opposed to deleting Librado Azcona and most members of WP:WikiProject Middle-earth would be opposed to deleting Mental illness in Middle-earth.This happens IRL too. I'm politically active in a number of areas, and belong to a number of organizations which advocate for positions I agree with. I often get emails asking me to show up at some community board meeting and speak in support or opposition to some proposal. That's the way things work. Heck, as I was typing this very paragraph, I just got a phone call asking me to volunteer for a political candidate.The problem is, it's not clear how to improve the situation. On the surface, the answer is "Well, if you're going to ping a group of people who are predisposed to one point of view, the neutral thing would be to also ping a group of people who are predisposed to the other point of view. But it doesn't work like that because there really aren't any projects made up of people who dislike a topic. For some topics, there are natural pairings of projects which cover contrasing viewpoints. WP:WikiProject Pakistan and WP:WikiProject India perhaps. Or maybe even WP:WikiProject Energy and WP:WikiProject Environment. But for sure, we don't have (Lord, I hope this comes out as a red link) WP:WikiProject gay bashers and hate mongers. So, yeah, we ping WP:WikiProject LGBT studies because it makes sense, but at the same time we can't be blind to the fact that it's not exactly a neutral thing to be doing. RoySmith(talk) 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure as keep (involved editor of the essay prior to the MfD) - In fact on the grounds of WP:DRVPURPOSE 5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion & 8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed), this may qualify for a speedy close. The nominator already made the same argument raised here during the MfD that somehow notifying WP:LGBT on an essay about a LGBT topic is somehow biased or violated the very definition and first line of WP:APPNOTE. If this were true, then any notification of any Wikiproject on a topic that it concerns itself with in the future would be void as well. This would imply No more notifying WP:TRAINS if an article related to trains is nominated for discussions. The DRV makes no new arguments, other than repeating that somehow WP:LGBT is supposedly different, which cannot be read as anything other than an accusation of bias. As is the very topic of the essay at hand, we luckily do not have a Wikiproject that openly promotes hate speech and should not and it is a fallacy to somehow argue that because we don't have a Wikiproject supporting hate speech that notifying the Wikiproject that does concern itself with the topic at hand is therefore not appropriate. Anyone is free to follow a Wikiproject and do so for a variety of reasons. So, beyond the current topic at hand, if the nominator want to suggest a change in policy of APPNOTE itself, then this is not the correct venue for it. Raladic (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse, no case has been made for why this needs to be revisited as the non-issue of canvassing was already addressed in the MfD while it ran. DRV isn't the 3rd bite at the apple. I appreciate that AO doesn't care for the "No X" essays, but the method for that is getting the policy changed, not MfD and DRV for one that has been deemed to not be an issue. StarMississippi 02:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am involved as a participant in the MfD, a WP:LGBT member, and one of the essay contributors supposedly canvassed to the discussion by YFNS. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm not going to assess the MfD (I'm lucky to have gotten in before it got too messy), and applaud SFR for doing so, but this was appropriate APPNOTE, and that is the entire crux of the argument. (Fwiw, I was "canvassed" and !voted "Delete/userfy/redirect/do whatever to get this out of projectspace".) Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
